Slayers vs. Night goblin netters

So here's a question for those of you who have the dwarf AND O&G books.

A successful 'netting' by a night goblin unit with netters reduces the strength of attacking enemy models by 1. However, slayers have their slayer special ability to always wound on a 4+, if not better. Which one of these rules trumps if a slayer is 'netted?' Can a (troll) slayer just use the slayer ability to ignore the effects of netting?

This question was not actually sparked in-game, I was just thinking about how to tackle gobbos (whose rules I don't own) with my dwarves.

Thanks in advance!
-Koosh

Arena of Death Champion: Nexim of the Guldskullz Tribe. Fear my wrath!

Slayers get netted, and are therefore at -1 S for the round of combat. Now, the slayer skill makes the slayer's strength equal to the target's toughness - so his base S would rise against models in contact (in the flank, say) that were T4+. So the slayer skill would raise the S (if necessary, it wouldn't alter vs the gobbos) and then the -1S would be deducted for the nets.

You base S becomes equal to the targets T (it is not a modifier as such e.g. +1/+2 etc., purely S=T), but is then reduced by the nets. That would be my take on the situation, but dicing off may be preferable if people can't agree.

Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.

If you don't work out a way for both rules to have an affect then you could have problems in the middle of a game. So you could roll a dice to see which special rule takes precedence or a balanced way could involve playing the dwarf slayer special rule of wounding on a 4+ as the rule says there strength is increased to match toughness, but then maybe apply the -1 S modifier to any armour save that may [or may not] be allowed.

I play O&G all the time and my usual oponent plays dwarfs and we roll each turn to see which rule works and we are fine with that.

A successful 'netting' by a night goblin unit with netters reduces the strength of attacking enemy models by 1. However, slayers have their slayer special ability to always wound on a 4+, if not better. Which one of these rules trumps if a slayer is 'netted?'

This all depends on what the rule actually says. If it says 'Slayers always wound on a 4+', then strength doesn't even come into the equation, so the netters can knock off a point of the slayers' strength all they like, but it still won't change the fact that they will be wounding on a 4+

However, if as Rork says, the rule actually states that the slayers' strength becomes equal to the target's toughness, then I suppose the -1 strength would be applied, meaning the slayers would then be wounding on a 5+. Of course, the slayer player could argue that the netter rule is applied first and the slayer rule second, effectively cancelling out the netters rule. This is the only uncertain part about this question.

After thinking about this overnight I would have to say the Dwarf Slayer ability overrides the NG net ability because the NG nets happen at the beginning of the combat and then the Slayers strength rises / changes to match the toughness of their opponent. So if you have a Slayer hit by a net at the start of the combat phase his [base] strength will be reduced by 1, but when he attacks [and if he hits] the strength is increased to match the toughness. That is how it is played in my group anyway.

As I said before - if this is a possibility in a game, discuss [calmly] before the game, or agree to roll a dice each turn to see which effect takes precedence that turn. Remember it is only a game and meant to be fun.

I would say that the nets rule does work against slayers. The rule states that for that combat phase either the enemy unit (slayers in this case) is at -1 or if you roll a 1 then the night gobbo unit is at -1 strength. It doesn't reduce the strength then combat starts, it reduces it for the whole phase.

So slayer strength during the combat can only ever be strength = toughness, then the net reduces it by 1 as it affects strength during that phase.